Analysis of the Campground Market in the Northeast

Report I I I

A PERSPECTIVE O N THE CAMPING-INVOLVEMENT CYCLE

by Marvin W. Kottke

Malcolm I. Bevins

Gerald L. Cole

Kenneth J. Hock

Wilbur F. LaPage

U S D A FOREST SERVICE R E S E A R C H PAPER NE-322 1975

NORTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

6816 MARKET STREET, UPPER DARBY, PA. 19082 F. BRYAN CLARK, STATION DIRECTOR

FOREWORD

THE NORTHEASTERN Regional Research Project NEM-42 was organ- ized to conduct an economic analysis of the campground market in the Northeast. One of its four major objectives was:

To determine the motivations, goals, and characteristics of the camping public as a guide to development of a rational pricing system of public and private camping resource mix.

This report presents the results of a nationwide household survey that was designed to meet this objective. The geographical scope of the survey was extended beyond the 12 Northeastern States to develop a comprehensive view of the camping market on a nationwide basis. This survey was designed by the NEM-42 Committee to learn more about the camping involvement cycle - from potential, to active, to inactive camping status - and to describe the images of camping at each stage of that cycle.

This is the third report prepared by the committee. Report I, Analysis of the Campground Market in the Northeast: Public Policy (Bond et al. 1973) deals with the legal authority and policies underlying management of public campgrounds. Analysis of the Campground Market in the North- east: Report 1I: Priuately 0 u ; m d Areas (Bevins et al. 1974), presents the results of a survey of commercial camping operations.

This research was funded by the agricultural experiment stations at state universities of the 12 Northeastern States, and by the Family Carnp- ing Federation of America, the Chrysler Corporation, Kampgrounds of America, the Woodall Publishing Company, the National Sporting Goods Association, and the U.S. Forest Service.

The household interviews for this survey were conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, during November and December 1973.

The authors express their appreciation to Prof. Robert S. Bond, Uni- versity of Massachusetts, Prof. Tommy L, Brown, Cornell University, and Prof. A. Robert Koch, Rutgers University, for their critical review and constructive help on this report.

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE CAMPING-INVOLVEMENT CYCLE

Resulk of a 1973 Nationwide Household Survey

A report by the Technical Committee of Northeastern Regional Research Projeet NEM-42

"Economic Analysis of the Campground Market in the Northeast"

ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISER

Earl F. Patric, Associate Director Agricultural Experiment Station

University of Rbode Island

TECHNICAL CO&INITTEE MEMBERS

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wayne C. Thomas Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marvin IV. Kottke Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gerald L. Cole, Chairman Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James C. Whittaker

Thomas ,J. Corcoran Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert S. Bond Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don Holecek Mew Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul R. Fiske New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Robert Koch New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bruce T. ?Vilkins

Tommy L. Brown Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph R. Cardenuto Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malcolm I. Bevins West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . Kenneth J. Hock

COOPERATIVE MEMBERS

Cooperative State Research Service, USIIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. T. M. Lee* Roland R, Robinson

Northeastern Forest Exmriment Station, Forest Service, USDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'CTi'ilbur F. LaPage

:* Until retirement 1 July 1973

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sample selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The camping-involvement cycle 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE IMAGES OF CAMPING 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The positive camping image 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The negative camping image 5 The indifferent or moderate image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 An image index related to demographic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and camping-involvement groups 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitude toward cost of camping 8

ALMOST A CAMPER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Characteristics of potential

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and nonmarket households 9 Association with camping friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Visits to camping shows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Considering a camping trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Camping shelter likely to be used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Participation in outdoor recreation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Equipment purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

THELASTCAMPINGTRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Campers are different . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campers' satisfaction with their last trip 15 Camping fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Reasons for camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

THE AUTHORS

MARVIN W. KOTTKE is a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Connecticut at Storrs, Connecticut.

MALCOLM I. BEVINS is an associate resource economist with the University of Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington, Vennont.

GERALD L, COLE is an associate professor of agricultural and food economics at the University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.

KENNETH J. HOCK is an assistant professor of agricultural economics at West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

WILBUR F. LaPACE is the leader of a research project in outdoor recreation marketing, and principal recreation scientist, Northeastern Forest Experirnent Station, Durham, New Wamp- shire.

ABSTRACT This is a report on a survey of 2,213 households and their potential

for entering the camping market in 1973. One out of every two house- holds was found to be in one of three stages of the camping-involvement cycle, Active campers included 21 percent of the sample, up by 2 percent since 1971; inactive campers, 20 percent, up by 6 percent; and potential campers, 9 percent, down by 2 percent. Reasons for the increased num- bers of inactive campers, and possible barriers between potential and active participation, are examined in detail. Twelve separate components of the popular image of camping - environments, conditions, and attrac- tions - are examined for each stage of the camping-involvement cycle.

INTRODUCTION AND An earlier phase of this NEM-42 Project

PROCEDURE demonstrated that a relationship between marketing effort and commercial camp-

The Problem ground success exists and indicated a gen-

During the past 10 years, dozens of surveys of visitors to the Nation's 8,700 commercial camping parks and 6,500 public campgrounds have produced volumes of descriptive data about campers, their equipment, their likes and dislikes, their participation patterns, their travel habits, and their socioeconomic characteristics. A recent bibliography of camping-market research identifies more than 200 surveys and observational studies of campers (Lapage and Hauland 197.4). Be- cause of their focus on known campers (usually a t the campground), the majority of these surveys have had limited usefulness for :

I. Improving our understanding of camping market growth.

2. Designing marketing strategies that will effectively eliminate possible barriers to participation among potential campers.

3. Identifying the causes of a lack of camp- ing by former campers.

Even a highly refined descriptive profile of active campers is not likely to provide reli- able marketing clues for reaching the po- tential camper who needs specific informa- tion more than he needs a convincing appeal to t ry camping. And though surveys of active campers may include some who have tem- porarily stopped camping in the past, they have rarely attempted to examine the causes and control of camping market drop-out.

eralized need for an increased volume of business a t most commercial campgrounds (Bevins et al. 197.4). Given effective market ing tools, i t should be possible to attract new campers and influence the return-visitation patterns of ex-campers. The purpose of this research is to provide information that will lead to more effective marketing and improve camper satisfaction. The approach used in this study incorporates three major innova- tions in descriptive camper-survey research :

1. A comparison of the images of camping held by potential campers, active and in- active campers, and persons having little or no interest in camping.

2. An examination of those householders who were almost a camper at some time in the past, their consideration given to camping, and their reasons for not camp- ing.

3. An evaluation of the last camping trip, its satisfactions and its disappointments for currently active campers, and for those who have given up camping tem- porarily or permanently.

Sample Selection

A, representative national sample of 2,213 heads of households, interviewed by Opinion Research Corporation as a part of their Decernber 1973 Caravan survey, provided the data for this study. To facilitate measurement

of trends in growth of the camping market, On the basis of response to a pictorial ques- the sumey proctzdurw were made comparable tion asking, ''Have you ever gone on an over- to those of an earlier study of the Nationd Camping Market (Lapage 1973). In the following analyses, segments of the sample have been weighted to accurately reflect cur- rent population sbtistics (table l ) .

Table I .-Demographic description of the national sample of households

Percent of sample households Description Before After

weighting weighting1

Men Women

18-29 years of age 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 years or over

Less than high school High school Some college

Professional occupation Managerial Clerical, sales Craftsman, foreman Other manual, service Farmer, farm laborer

Non-metro - rural - urban Metro - 50 M to 1 Million

- over 1 million

Northeastern U.S. North Central South West

White Non-white

Under $5,000 family income $5,000 to $6,999 $7,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 or over

No children in household Children under 18 Teenagers, 12-17

Home owners Home renters

'Weighting was performed to reflect current popu- lation statistics.

night trip using any of these types of equip- ment ?", households were classified as being either campers or nos-campers. Campers were further classified as active, tempwarity in- active, or pe~manentlg i-nactive. Active camp- ers, those who went camping in 1973, included 21 percent of the weighted sample (table 2) . Campers who had not been camping since 1970 or earlier, and who reported no intention of returning to an active camping status, made up 11 percent of the sample. Another 9 percent was classified as temporarily in- active, and was made up of campers who had not camped in 1973; however, most of them had camped in 1971 or 1972. One out of every two persons ever having camped was an in- active camper in 1973.

Table 2.-Extent of camping involvement by sample respondenfs, 1973

- -

Percent of Camping-involvement sample households

group1 Before After weighting weighting"

Campers : Active Temporarily inactive Permanently inactive

Non-campers : High potential Medium potential Low potential Zero potential

-

I Definitions : Active. Participated in camping in 1973. T e m p r a r i l g inactive. Had camped before, but not

in 1973 and, if had not camped since 1970, specifically stated, "have not stopped camping."

Permanently inactive. Has camped, but not since 1970 an$ did not specifically state "have not stopped.

High potential. Never camped, but expected to' camp in 1974.

Medium wtent iat . Never camped, but expected to camp in future but probably not in 1974.

Low potential. Never camped and felt i t would be unlikely in the foreseeable future, or didn't know.

Zero potential. Never camped and was definitely not interested.

'Weighting was performed to reflect current popu- lation statistics.

Non-campers, or nearly 60 percent of the the camping involvement cy'ele-from being sample, were further classified according to a potential c a p e r (high or medium poten- their potential for h o m i n g campers in the near future. One pereent of the total sample had made plans to try carnping for the first time in 1974; these households were classi- fied as having a high potential for entering the camping market, Another 8 percent of the total expressed a desire to try camping, but had not planned to do so in 1974, and were consider4 to have med&m potentid. Seven- teen percent of the sample, the low potential group, stated that they were unlikely to t ry camping in the foreseeable future. And a zero potential classification was applied to the remaining one-third of the sample who were definitely not interested in camping.

The Camping-Involvement Cycle

A comparison of the results of this and the 1971 survey (table 3) reinforces the need, by all segments of the camping industry, for a better understanding of the three stages of

Table 3.-A comparison of camping-involvement trends from I97 1 to 1973

Involvement Number of households1 in camping 1971 1973 Change

Thousands Thousands Percent Active 12,600 14,300 +13 Inactive 9,100 13,600 $49 Potential2 7,400 6,100 -18 Little or no interests 35,900 34,000 - 5 Total 65,000 68,000 + 4

Number of households Basis : (sample size) 2,003 2,213 -

"ource of total households for the years 1971 and 1973: U.S. Census Bureau 1962. For converting households to persons, multiply by 3.11 for 1971 and by 3.01 for 1973.

"Includes high- and medium-potential groups.

31ncludes low- and zero-potential groups, which are considered as not being in the camping-involvement cycle.

*Sampling errors for surveys in this size range are approximately 2 pereent, or roughly 1.3 million house- holds, at the 95 percent probability level. This means that only the inactive eamper segment shows a dif- ference between these two surveys, which could not be explained on the basis of sampling error alone.

tial), an active eamper, or an inactive mem- ber of the camping market. [Inactive camprs do continue to buy camping equipment (LaPage and Ragain 1974)l . According to our 19'74 survey results, 9 percent of American households were ~ k n t i a l campers, 21 percent active, and 20 percent inactive. The other 50 percent had little or no interest in camping.

The significant increase since 1971 in the size of the inactive s emen t of the market, combined with a shrinking reservoir of po- tential campers, indicates the emerging need for a totally new approach to the marketing of camping. The bulk of future market growth cannot continue to come from induction of initiates. Future growth will depend increas- ingly on higher levels of active participation and renewed interest by camping market drop-outs.

The increase in the ratio of inactive camp- ers to active campers, from 3 :4 in 1971 to 1 :I in 1973, suggests that current marketing practices may be highly successful in attracb ing new campers, but apparently are insuf- ficient to hold them in the market or to re- activate former campers. The proportion of campers with at least 2 years of experience, who reported that their annual participation has been declining, was 50 percent in 1973; up from 37 percent in 1971.

The degree of difficulty of the marketing function increases as the size of the potential camping market decreases. In the early days of camping market expansion, family camp ing was an easy concept to sell. Willing buyers made the marketing job almost unnecessary. But, as thousands of eager potential campers swelled the demand, there occurred simultane- ous increases in : ( 1 ) consumer confusion be- tween hundreds of brand names and thous- ands of potential places to go camping; (2) campgrozlnd crowding, waiting lines, and deterioration of facilities, resulting in a slip- ping image through camping's most effective advertising medium : word-of-mouth recom- mendations ; (3) rising costs of carnping and camping equipment, and direct comparisons with alternative forms of vacation travel,

forcing camping to lose its once highly com- petitive edge ; and (4) diversity in c a n z p i ~ g motivations, with resultant decreases in camp- ing satisfactions and in camping's st-atus appeal.

Today's marketing job is to overcome the liabilities developed as a result of earlier rapid expansion in the market. Three critical points of attack are develowd in the following sections of this report: (1) the images of camping ; (2) the transition f rorn potential to active camper ; and (3 ) re~ollections of the last camping trip. In each section, compari- sons are made htween the involvement cate- gories as defined in table 2. Such comparisons have only tentative transient validity as people pass from one stage of the involvement cycle to another. Nevertheless, expressions by the respondents on their intentions for the future and their evaluations of past experiences are indicative of general market conditions.

THE IMAGES OF CAMPING The rapid growth of the campground in-

dustry brought with i t consumer confusion, crowding, rising costs, and diversity of moti- vations. Consquently, negative images of camping may be developing. Perhaps such negative images are contributing to a slowing- down of the camping growth rate. The first objective for this study was :

T o compare the images of camping held b y potential, active, and inactive campers w i t h those held b y non- campers and to evaluate the probable impact of the comparative ismages of camping growth rates.

The following statement was used by the interviewers to aid respondents in providing a description of their camping images :

"This exhibit contains descriptive words which can be used to describe camping. As 1 read the letter before the descriptive word, please choose a point on. the scale which is closest to what would describe your impres- sion of camping.'"

a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (I = interesting to 5 ~ZII: br ing ) . The descriptive terns were randomly assigned so that the most positive term was not always listed first. For analysis purposes, rankings of both "3'? and "no re sponse" were considered to be the same re- action, since both responsa indicate indiffer- ence.

Three components of the public" image of camping are recognized : camping environ- ment, camping conditions, and camping at- tractions. The first component, camping en- viron?~2ent, included the following four descrip- tive extremes : camping is inkresting or bor- ing; refreshing or tiring; pleasant or un- pleasant; and campers are friendly or un- friendly. Each of these attitudes reflect a re- spondent's impressions of the physical and social environment of camping.

The second component, camping conditions, included the following four descriptive ex- tremes: the campground is clean or dirty; safe or dangerous ; uncrowded or crowded; and inexpensive or expensive. These attitudes are also logically grouped together because each is a direct function of campground management.

The third component, the attraction of camping, included the following four descrip- tive extremes : camping is easy or difficult; fun or work ; convenient or inconvenient ; and comfortable or uncomfortable. These terms reflect the camping activity itself, indepen- dent of physical and managerial considera- tions.

The Positive Camping Image

Considering the three components, or cluse ters of attitudes, we found that the most positive rmponse from all groups related to the camping environment (table 4 ) . More than half of all households (U.S. public) held positive attitudes about the camping environ- ment. For the most part, they pictured a campground as interesting, the people friendly, and the experience a s refreshing and pleasant. Such an image was most pro- nounced for active campers (80 prcent) , followed by the temporarily inactive (72 per- cent) and the pemanently inactive (61

Respondents were told to choose a point on percent). The eniironmental images of the

4

Table 4.-Households holding a positive camping image classified by degree of camping involvemen#

Camping-involvement group Image High and Low and description All Active Temporarily Permnentfy medium zero

inactive inactive potential potential

- - - - - - - Percent of respondmts - - - - - - - Camping Environment :

Interesting 55* 86 79 65 83 30 People friendly 59 78 66 69 64 47 Refreshing 44 73 70 47 62 2 1 Pleasant 52 8 1 73 63 81 27

Composite 52 80 72 6 1 72 31

Camping Conditions : Clean 34 54 39 40 47 21 Safe 43 64 60 45 45 30 'Uncrowded 25 29 26 36 35 19 Inexpensive 3 7 50 44 41 40 28

Composite 35 49 42 40 42 24

Attraction of Camping : Easy 35 56 47 36 50 2 1 Fun 40 62 56 45 57 23 Convenient 27 47 40 31 35 15 Comfortable 39 65 56 43 54 20

Composite 35 58 50 39 49 20

Basis : number of respondents 2,199 450 214 281 198 1,056

*55 percent of the 'U.S. public felt that camping was interesting, that is, they assigned a 1 or 2 rank on a 1 to 5 scale (1 being the most positive, 5 being the most negative).

high- and medium-potential campers closely resembled those of the temporarily inactive. Less than v3 of the low- and zero-potential group had a positive image of the camping environment.

Thirty-five percent of all households held a favorable image of camping conditions, by perceiving campgrounds as clean, safe, un- crowded, and not expensive. Active campers had the highest positive image (49 percent) of campground conditions. The temporarily inactive and permanently inactive campers had similar impressions of camping condit- ions: about 40 percent favorable. And about 40 percent of the high and medium potential campers had a good impression of camping conditions. Less than a quarter of those with low or zero potential had a positive image of camping conditiom.

Like the image of camping conditions, 35 percent of the public had a positive image of the attraction of campiag (easy, fun, conveni- ent, and comfortable). Fifty-eight percent of

the active campers, 50 percent of the tem- porarily inactive campers, and 39 percent of the permanently inactive campers had posi- tive images of camping's attraction. The at- traction for potential campers was as favor- able as that of the temporarily inactive group, while the low- and zero-potential group were fa r below all others, only one out of five find- ing anything attractive about camping.

The Negative Camping Image

Camping's potential for expansion is also related to negative aspects of its image. A re- versal of the positive image would be ex- pected except that many people are indiffer- ent and hold neither positive nor negative views. A stronger similarity was noted be- tween permanently inactive campers and households with a little or no potential for camping (table 5). This similarity was not quite as evident when only the positive camp- ing image was analyzed.

Of the three major components, the attrac-

Tabfe 5.-Households holding a negafive camping image classified by degree of camping involvement

- Image description

Camping-involvement group

All Active Temporarily inactive Permanently zii:id Low zero and inactive potential potential

- - - - - - - Pweezt of respndents - - - - - - - Camping Environment :

Boring 19" 6 I0 15 3 30 People unfriendly 11 11 16 10 17 3 Tiring 25 10 18 28 15 35 Unpleasant 18 8 13 15 7 26

Camping Conditions : Dirty 22 15 17 23 15 26 Dangerous 15 9 10 17 21 16 Crowded 32 32 3 5 38 3 5 29 Expensive 18 15 17 19 2 1 18

Composite 22 18 20 24 23 22

Attraction of Camping: Difficult 25 13 24 30 22 29 Work 26 18 21 26 18 32 Inconvenient 33 19 24 36 26 40 Uncomfortable 2 6 11 18 28 12 35

Composite 28 15 22 30 20 34

Basis : number of respondents 2,199 450 214 28 1 198 1,056

* 19 percent of the U.S. public felt that camping was boring, that is, they assigned a 4 or 5 rank on a 1 to 5 scale ( 1 being the most positive, 5 being the most negative).

tion of camping was most likely to be negative (camping is difficult, work, not convenient, and uncomfortable) for all except active and potential campers. This suggests a major barrier to market expansion because attrac- tion should be stronger in order to overcome the correctable negative images of environ- ment and camping conditions.

Looking a t specific elements of the nega- tive image, we found that about 1 out of 10 active and temporarily inactive campers see camping as k i n g dangerous, However, 25 percent of the high-potential group and 20 percent of the medium-potential group in- clude an element of danger in their image of camping. The most common image of camping conditions, held by 1 out of 3 campers and noncampers alike, is crowding. This seems to provide the most obvious focus for attempts to improve the public image of camping con- ditions.

The Indifferent or Moderate Image

While i t is important to analyze both posi- tive and negative images, the indifferent or undeveloped opinion about camping may also suggest marketing opportunities. Nonre- sponse to image elements was minimal in all groups except for those with low or zero potential, where the nonrespnse was nearly as great as the indifferent response.

The frequency of indifferent images ranged from 29 percent for the camping en- vironment to 44 percent for camping condi- tions, and the percentages were surprisingly similar for active, temporarily inactive, and potential campers. These relatively high f re- quencies may indicate a reluctance to general- ize about situations that can be both favorable and unfavorable (tabIe 6) . However, when the indifferent image is combined with the negative image for factors such as crowding,

convenience, and cleanliness, i t becomes ap- parent that the industry faces a major chal- lenge to produce a more desirable image and thereby e x p n d the potential for market growth.

An Image Index Related to Demographic d Camping-Involvement Groups

To evaluate either the positive or negative camping image alone could lead to distorted impressions. A composite image index was de- vised by dividing the percentage of households holding a positive image by thme holding a negative image. (The indifferent or moderate image is excluded from this image index.) A single index number is derived for each group of households (active campers, Westerners, home-owners, &. ) by averaging the 12 image factors.

Image indices ranged from slightly below 1.0 to slightly a b v e 4.0 ; that is, for each per- son having a negative impression of camping, there were between 1 and 4 persons having a favorable irnprasion. The only group having an image-index of less than 1.0 was that of households having little or no potential to enter the camping market. The imageindex for the general public is 1.7, while that for active campers is 4.3 (that is 4.3 favorable for each unfavorable).

The image index provides a tool for study- ing the camping potential of various demo- graphic groups. Potential campers have an index of 2.6. Others approaching this level are heads of households who are 18 to 29 years old (2.6), home renters (2.1), and Western- ers (2.2). At the other extreme, the lowest image-indices are found among : farmers

Table &.-Households holding an indifferent or moderate camping image, classified by degree of camping involvement

- Image description

Camping-involvement group

All Active Temporarily inactive Permanently zki:gd Low zero and inactive potential potential

-- --

- - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - Camping Environment :

Interesting-boring 26" 8 11 20 14 40 People friendly-

unfriendlv 30 11 18 2 1 19 45 ~ e f reshing-tiiing 3 1 17 12 25 23 44 Pleasant-unpleasant 30 11 14 22 12 46

Composite 29 12 14 22 17 44

Camping Conditions : Clean-dirty 44 31 44 3 7 38 53 Saf e-dangerous 42 27 30 38 34 54 Uncrowded-crowded 43 39 39 26 30 52 Inexpensive-expensive 45 3 5 39 40 38 54

-

Composite 44 33 38 35 35 53

Attraction of Camping : Easy-difficult 40 31 29 3 4 28 50 Fun-work 34 20 23 29 25 45 Convenient-

inconvenient 40 34 36 3 3 39 45 Comf ortable-

uncodortable 3 5 24 26 29 34 44

Composite 37 2 7 28 3 1 32 46

Basis : number of respondents 2,199 450 214 281 198 1,056

*26 percent of the U.S. public were indifferent or had a moderate view on whether camping was boring or interesting, that is, they assigned a 3 rank or failed to respond to the question.

(1.2), persons over 60 years old (1.31, North- Table 7.-Attitudes toward the total cost of camp- easterners (1.3), and women (1.4) (appen- ing as compared with other ways of traveling and

dix VI) . taking a vacation, in percent1

In terms of education there was relatively little difference betwwn groups. The image index of farmers, clerical, and sales workers was eonsideratsly lower than that sf crafts- men and foremen. Those with an annual in- come less than $7,000 had a higher image in- dex than families in higher income groups, espwially those whose incomes exceeded $Is,ooo.

To validate the image index, a similar an- alysis was made of rwponses to the following open-ended question :

"As briefly as possible, tell me what thoughts come to mind as you think about living a t a campground for a few days,"

Camping- More Less About Don't economical economical same know

group

U.S. public 43 Active campers 66 Temporarily

inactive 5 1 Permanently

inactive 45 High-potential

households 51 Medium-potential

households 53 Low-potential

households 36 Zero-potential

households 27

Disregarding the nonresponse and the ir- 'Respondents were asked to visualize the total cost

relevant answers, responses containing a of camping as including taxes on equipment, camp- site fees, extra tolls, insurance, and other equipment

positive statement were divided by all within costs.

that group making a negative statement, to create a second image index. For the most part, the same general relationships between population groups were found. However, the spread between income groups was less, and the relative positions of certain income groups changed from the preceding analysis. Also, the spread between home-renters and homeowners was reduced. A slightly larger spread between the residents of large metro- politan areas and smaller urban area was noted. However, all factors considered, the validity of the image index is substantiated.

Attitude Toward Cost of Camping

One element of the camping image- "camping is expensive or not expensive2'- was assumed to be a major pokntial barrier to market growth. Respondents were asked

far more prevalent among active campers than among any other group, including t h ~ s e households with a high potential to try camp- ing. One-third of the high-potential respond- ents felt that the cost of camping was about the same as other ways of traveling and tak- ing a vacation, The cost-image of camping, among potential campers, is clearly not one of "bargain basement travel." And the ap- parent advantage seen by active campers may be as much a justification of their wuipment investment as i t is a reflection of their superior knowledge of the market.

ALMOST A CAMPER to consider the total cost of camping, includ- With 10 percent of the population as po- ing taxes on wuipment, campsite fees, extra tential campers, those households that are tolls, insurance, and equipment costs, and almost in the camping market become an im- decide whether camping is more economical portant focus for research. What has kept than other ways of traveling and taking a them from taking that first camping trip? vacation (table 7). What types of equipment are they likely to

Two-thirds of all active campers felt that use if they decide to try camping? What other camping was more economical than alterna- kinds of recreational activities are they inter- tive ways of vacationing. This attitude was ested in?

8

The second objective of this study-to Table 8.-Age category distributions for all house- determine the processes by which people holds and selected camping tnarkef segmenfs move from the reservoir of potential campers ( 973 in percent

to become active members of the eampiag Age m a r k e t i s approached through a comparison category A11 Active Potential Nonmarket

'rzous.iholds campers campers households of campers, potential campers, and persons (yeam)

with little or no interest in camping. 18-29 27 46 36 16

Characteristics of Potential and Nonmarket Households

Potential includes both high- and medium- 60 and over 20 7 4 31

potential groups. The NonmarkeE includes Total 100 100 100 100 those households that are considered to have low or zero potential for entering the camping market.

We hypothesized that many potential en- Table 9.-Presence of children for all households trants would be young families with children and selected camping market segments, 1973, in and that their interest is prompted primarily percent

bv a search for low-cost recreation. In comparing the socioeconomic character- Children in All Active Potential Nonmarket

household households campers campers households istics of potential campers with the character- istics of the nonmarket households, we saw Yes, under 18 50 58 78 42 several patterns emerge (table 8). Potential years age campers are more numerous in the 30 to 49-

None 50 42 22 58

year age bracket than are active campers. Total 100 100 100 100

Nearly half of the active camper group are under 30. Persons 50 and over are not as likely to be interested in camping as those in younger age groups' And campers Table 10.--Income classes for all households and are much likely have in the selected camping market segments, 1973, in percent household than are the nonmarket households and the active campers (table 9) . Income All Active Potential Nonmarket

Nearly one-half of the potential campers (d$~a:s) households campers campers households

reported 1973 incomes of $10,000 or more (table 10). The largest income category Under 5,000 22 15 18 2 7 among nonmarket households was less than 5,000-6,999 13 11 16 14

$5,000. 7,000-9,999 20 20 19 20 10,000-14,999 25

More than 19 percent of the potential camp- 15,000 and over 19 28 28 22 2 6 19 16

ers were nonwhites, compared to 3 percent Total 99 100 100 99

of all the active campers and 11 percent of all households (table 11) .

Region of residence seems to influence the market for potential campers, The Northeast has the greatwt proportion of pokntial camp Ta b l e I I .-Race breakdown of a l l households and ers and the smallest proportion of active selected camping market segments, 1973, in percent campers (table 12). This may be due in part to the historical development of fewer public All Active Potential Nonmarket

campsites per capita in these regions than in households campers campers households

the North Central or Western regions white 87 9 7 58 82 (ORRRG 1962). As a result of having more Nonwhite 11 3 19 17

camping opportunity, a larger proportion of Total 98 100 97 99

9

Table 12.-Region of residence for all households and selected camping market segments, 1973, in percent

Region of All Active Potential Nonmarket residence households campers campers households

Northeast 24 14 34 29 North Central 28 23 18 32 South 32 31 36 3 1 West 16 32 12 8

Total 100 100 100 100

Table 13.-Friends owning camping equipment, by camping-involvement group, in percent

camping-involvement Friends owning equipment SOUP Yes No Don't know

Campers : Active Temporarily inaetive Permanently inactive

Potential campers : High potential Medium potential

Nonmarket households : Low potentir,l Zero potential

All groups

Table 14.-Respondents having visited a camping or recreational-vehicle show within past two years, 1973

Visited camping show

Percent Campers :

Active 5 1 Temporarily inactive 3 4 Permanently inactive 22

Potential campers :

the North Central or Western population has already tried camping.

Associat.ion with Camping Friends

More than two-thirds of the potential campers have friends who own camping equipment, while less than one-half of the nonmarket households report associating with persons who are active or inactive campers (table 13).

The industry might, for example, examine marketing techniques that enhance the likeli- hood that campers will introduce noncampers to camping. For example, commercial camp- grounds might sponsor occasional open houses or a free camping weekend for regular custo- mers who bring along potential campers to inspect the campground and meet other campers. Or campgrounds having sites with equipment rentals might offer a discount rate in a rental unit during slack periods in the season for people who have never camped before.

Visits to Camping Shows

Visits to camping or recreational-vehicle shows are a partial indicator of potential camping interest. But only one out of four potential campers reported having visited a carnping or recreational vehicle show during the previous 2 years (table 14). The strongest appeal of camping shows seems to be for the active and temporarily inactive campers.

Considering a Camping Trip

Three-fourths of the high-potential group and more than one-half (54 percent) of the medium-potential campers had considered going camping during the past I to 3 years (table 15). Of those having considered camp- ing, one out of two had selected a region to visit, and one out of three had looked into the possibilities of buying, renting, or borrowing carnping equipment for the trip.

High potential 25 Those who had considered camping were Medium potential 26 asked why they did not take the trip they had

Nonmarket households : 14

contemplated. The most frequent reason given Low potential Zero potential 6 by the high-potential group was the lack of

- sufficient time, followed by a lack of informa- Total 23 tion about camping quipment. Other less

Table 15.-Noncamper households who have considered a camping trip, their extent of planning, and iheir reasons for no+ camping, in percent

Item Camping-potential group

High Medium Lour Zero TO&%[

Non-eamper households considering camping 75 54 13 2 14

EXTENT O F PLANNING TO CAMPf Selected a region to visit 77 48 54 a. Wrote for camping information" 23 15 8 b. Attempted to make reservations2 1 2 0 Cheeked into cost of camping equipment 5 1 37 3 1 Cheeked into cost of renting equipment 11 22 23 Cheeked into borrowing equipment 45 33 15

REASONS FOR NOT HAVING STARTED CAMPINGf Cost of camping 6 19 19 Other priorities for time 33 14 19 Lack of equipment information 18 11 6 Lack of campground information 1 10 12 Uncertain of social enjoyment 6 3 6 Lack of equipment 6 6 g

Mixed preferences within family 0 2 6 Gas shortage 0 3 * Other 30 32 32

--

Estimated number of households in each potential group (millions) :

l Asked only of those who considered camping in the past 1 to 3 years. 'Asked only of those who had selected a region to visit. * Signifies any value less than 0.5 percent.

frequent reasons included concern about the cost of camping, uncertainty about the experi- ence of associating with other campers, and the lack of equipment. Among the medium- potential group, concern about the cost of camping was cited most often, followed by lack of time. Other reasons included lack of information about equipment and available campgrounds as well as the lack of equipment.

This reinforces our finding that the image of camping is complex. I t shows a need for the industry to communicak with potential campers and satisfy their needs for informa- tion. Relevant information for prospective campers might include a cost-comparison of various types of quipment (for example, tents and associated equipment compared with self-contained trailer, truck, or motor home units) for different camping objectives,

and expected frequencies of camping trips. Attempts a t providing relevant information should have the objective of reducing the complexity that potential campers see in be- coming involved with camping equipment and choosing among campground locations and f acilities.

Of those who had previously considered a camping trip, about one-half of the high-po- tential group and one-third of the medium- potential group had investigated the cost of purchasing camping equipment. Almost the same respective proportions of the two groups had considered borrowing quipment for their first trip. Equipment rental was explored to a lesser extent by potential campers, Again, this suggests an oppoAunity for the camp- ground industry to provide information about the alternative costs of equipment purchase versus rental.

Camping Shelter Likely to be Used Table 1 &-Type of shelter potential campers

Tents are most likely to be chosen for the expect to use on first trip, in percenf first camping trip by both the high- and medium-potential campers (table 16). In a

Type of shelter distant second place, and a t the oppsite end

Camping-potential group High Medium

of the cost swetrum, is the motor home. Tent 59 37 Of the potential tent campers, 40 percent Motor home 10 17

expect to purehme a tent for their first, trip, Folding trailer 10 12 while one out of t h e e intends to borrow a Truck 10 12

Travel trailer tent, and 11 percent hope to rent a tent. Pur- Van or bus 3 12 6 5

chasing intentions among high-potential Pickup 2 2 campers were more than three times that of the medium-pokntial group,

Nearly three-fourths of all potential camp- ers who indicated camper trailers or travel trailers as their first choice are most likely to rent units for their first trip. Among po- tential campers who are likely to choose a motor home, 60 percent of those with high potential would prefer to purchase, and one out of two with medium potential expect to purchase.

Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities

Table 17.-index of participation in ten outdoor recreation activities, by camping-involvement group, 1973

Camping-involvement Index of participation in stage and group 10 recreation activities1

Medium potential 243 High potential 317 Active 385 Temporarily inactive 312 Permanently inactive

Potential campers are frequent partici- Low potential pants in other outdoor recreation activities- Zero potential An index of participation for 10 outdoor recreation activities shows that participation t i o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti",~,"6"$:1ge~f";~~~;,"," ;i ,"$$g,"; in 8Ctivities other than Camping increa~es as picnicking, swimming, fishing, boating, hunting, hik- potential campers become active campers and ing, trail-bike/snowmobiling, back-packing, canoeing,

and snow skiing. See table 19 for participation rates diminishes as their camping declines (table by individual activities. 17). Those classified as disinterested (low and zero camping potential) participated least in other ouMoor recreational activities. Thus camping activity may be a useful indicator of total outdoor recreational involvement by Table 18.--lndex of expected outdoor-recreation

households. equipment purchases, by camping-involvemen) group, 1973

Equipment Purchases Camping involvement Index of expected Another question asked was, "'During the equipment purchases1

next year, which of the following types of Medium 99 equipment do you expect to purchase?" An H~~~ potential 246 index for 15 different kinds of oulcioor-recrea- Active 152 tion wuipment indicated that the inkrest in Temporarily inactive 125

increases from medium- to high- 60 Low potential potential camping groups. Expectations of Zero potential

40 15

buying equipment remain high among active campers, but decline slightly among tempor- Constructed by summing percentages for each

sample group. See table 20 for listing of types of arily inactive campers (table 18). The dis- equipment.

interested group has a very low expectation of purchasiw outdoor recreation equipment.

Obviously, interest in outdoor-reereation equipment is closely related to interest in camping. Marketing efforts for outdoor.. recreation wuipment aimed a t persons with the characLeristics of the active or higb-po- tential campers would probably be most pro- ductive.

The impr t ;ane of campers in the total de- mand for many types of outdoor-recreation facilities and equipment is clearly evident (appendix I and 11). The three categories of campers made up 41 percent of the total sur- vey sample and accounted for 52 to 55 percent of the picnicking and swimming, 62 to 69 percent of the motorboating, and 70 to 95 percent of the participation in the other activities listed. Campers may be expected to purchase 60 to 69 percent of the fishing and hunting equipment, snowmobiles, trail bikes, motor boats, and refrigeratars or coolers ; 70 to 79 percent of the hiking and skiing equip- ment, sleeping bags, camp stoves, and lan- terns; and more than 80 percent of the planned lightweight tents, back-packs, and canoes.

THE LAST CAMPING TRIP Does the high rate of camper drop-out

represent normal attrition? Do people become involved over a period of years and then gradually quit camping? Is there a relation- ship between the camping-involvement cycle and the family life cycle? Is the accelerating rate of camping market dropout since 1971 due, in part, to dissatisfaction with camping experiences? We hypothesized that impulsive entry into the market may have led to short- lived camping involvement for some who found that camping and campers were differ- ent from their expeetations.

Our purpose in focusing on the last camp ing trip was to evaluate the satisfactions and disappointments of campers as they approach the inactive stages of the involvement cycle. Specifically, the objective for this part of the study was :

To evaluate the processes bg which campers leave the eamping market

and t o determine the extent and source o f carnlper dissatisfwtibns.

Campers are Differen+

To get an indieation of how campers might differ from noncampers, respondents were asked about their participation in selected out- door-recreation activities that may comple- ment the eamping activity. Campers are action-oriented people who comnnly partici- pate in many types of outdoorirecreation activities. Active and temporarily inactive campers are much more likely to be partiei- pants in outdoor activities other than camping (table 19). Active campers represent only 21 percent of the sample, but they account for more than half of the reported participation in backpacking, hiking, skiing, and trail-bike and snowmobile use (appendix I ) .

The idea that campers are a more active group of people is further supported by an examination of plans to purchase outdoor- recreation equipment (table 20). The per- centage of active and temporarily inactive campers with plans to purchase various types of outdoor-recreation equipment in 1974 a o counted for more than 50 percent of all ex- pected purchases (appendix 11). Purchase intentions were, expectedly, highest among the small group having high camping poten- tial ; and the similarity in purchasing plans be between active and temporarily inactive campers suggest that the temporary classifi- cation is a reasonably accurate one. The high proportion of temporarily inactive campers planning to purchase lightweight tents sug- gests that camping market dropout may be preceded by a search for alternative camping styles (table 20).

The reasons given by inactive campers for not having camped recently are predomin- antly personal constraints rather than a reaction to changes in the camping environ- ment (table 21). The lack of equipment, af- fecting I out of every 10 inactive campers, seems to be the only limitation that the indus- try might be able to correct.

In response to the question about disposal of e-quipment by inactive campers, 40 percent of the temporarily inactive campers and 53 *

percent of the permanently inactive campers

Table 19.-Percenfage of camping-market groups parficipating in selecfed recreation activities, by 1973

Recreation activity

Camper-involvernenL group Little or Medium High T q m r i l y Permanently

no po&ntial potential potential inactive ina&ve

Picnicking away from home Swimming away from home Fishing Motorboatine; Hiking Hunting Trail-bike/ snowmobiling Canoeing Snow skiing Back-packing None of the above

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Table 20.-Percentage of camping-market groups expecting to purchase recreation equipment in 1974

Type of equipment

Little or Medium High Temporarily Permanently no potential potential potential Active inactive inactive

Sleeping bags Fishing Hunting Cooler/ Ref rigerator Lantern Camp stove Lightweight tent Hiking Back-pack Heater Skiing (snow) Motorboat Trail-bike Snowmobile Canoe Other None of these

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Table 2 I .-Frequency with which inactive campers reported selective reasons for not having camped since iheir last trip, in percent

Reason Temporarily Permanently inactive inactive

Lack of time 31 24 Lack of money 13 8 Lack of equipment 12 9 Lack of interest 10 19 Family conflicts 9 10

ity of campers in all camper groups expressed general satisfaction with the overall experi- ence on their last camping trip (table 22). Only 7 percent of the active campers were generally dissatisfied with their last trip, as were I1 percent of the temporarify inactive campers. However, dissatisfaction with the last camping trip ~ r a s reported by 27 percent of the prmanently inactive campers.

Though a high proportion of catnpers were Crowded and - generally satisfied with their last trip, sub-

dirty campgrounds 4 stantially fewer were pleased with the avail-

reported that they never owned camping equipment. And 9 percent and 24 percent, respectively, have disposed of their equip- ment. On the basis of current equipment ownership, alone, only about 25 percent of all inactive campers might be encouraged to try camping again.

Campers' Satisfaction With Their Last Trip

One important measure of industry per- formance is customer satisfaction. The major-

ability and quality of specific accommoda- tions a t the campgrounds they visited on that trip. In contrast to the 93 percent of the active campers who were satisfied with their overall trip, 73 to 78 percent were satisfied with the availability of campsites, recreation facilities, and the cleanliness or condition of the campgrounds visited. Dissatisfaction was most common for both active and inactive campers on : campground cleanliness (I 3 percent), recreation facilities (11 percent), and availability of campsites ( I I percent) .

Not all camping trips are carefully planned in advance. Thiriy-nine percent of all active and inactive campers indicated that their last

Table 22.-Camper satisfaction with the last camping trip, in percent

Item and satisfaction Temporarily Permanently All inactive inactive campers

Overall trip : Generally satisfied Generally dissatisfied Does not apply to camping style

Campsite availability : Generally satisfied Generally dissatisfied Does not apply to camping style

Hookup avaiIabiIity : Generally satisfied Generally dissatisfied Does not apply to camping styIe

Recreation facilities Generally satisfied Generally dissatisfied Does not apply to camping style

Cleanliness and condition of campground : Generally satisfied Generally dissatisfied Does not apply to camping style

camping trip was taken with relatively little on their last camping trip. Approximately half planning. However, the difference in percent- of all active and inactive campers patronized ages of active and inactive campers who publicly owned and operated campgrounds, camped on impulse is not great enough to in- one-fourth to one-third chose privately oper- dicate that unplanned trips were a cause of ated campgrounds, and 15 percent visikd both dissatisfaction leading to camping inactivity. types on their last trip.

Use of a tent on the last trip was most com- mon among all elasses of campers, and was Camping Fees highest for the permanently inactive group. Nearly two-thirds of the inactive campers used tents or tent-trailers, while fewer than one out of five used motor homes, truck camp- ers, or converted vans. Because the tempor- arily inactive camper represents a transition stage of involvement, a few of those currently using tents and tent-trailers may be in the market for unitized camping rigs (motor homes, trucks, and vans) (table 23).

Classification of campgrounds by type of ownership showed relatively little d i f erence in utilization by each of the camper groups

Table 23.-Type of shelter used on the last camping trip, in percenfl

Camper group Shelter Temporarily Permanently

Active inactive inactive

Tent 41 46 49 Folding trailer 11 15 8 Travel trailer 17 18 20 Truck camper 15 9 6 Motor home 7 5 3 Van or converted bus 10 5 4 Pickup cover 5 5 3 Other 5 3 6 Unknown 1 2 3

'Percentages by camper group zdd to more than 100 percent because some respondents used more than one type of shelter.

- -

In addition to evaluating campground facilities, campers were asked about their satisfaction with the costs of camping en- countered on their last trip. Seventy percent of the active and temporarily inactive camp- ers expressed general satisfaction with fees paid for facilities on their last camping trip compared to 54 percent of the permanently in- active campers (table 24). But less than 10 percent of all campers were dissatisfied with the fees.

All campers and noncampers were asked whether fees charged a t publicly operated campgrounds should be set high enough to cover all costs of developing and operating the facility or whether fees should be kept low by covering most of the costs with tax monies. A majority of active campers felt that fees should be kept low. However, the largest proportion of inactive and potential campers who expressed a definite opinion felt that camping fees should cover all costs of operat- ing public campgrounds. Inactive campers felt most strongly that fees should cover costs-& further indication that cost was probably not a cause of inactivity. The lack of any opinion by large segments of the public having little or no potential for becoming campers tends to distort the true level of relevant public opinion that fees should cover all costs of operating public campgrounds (table 25).

Table 24.-Level of satisfaction with camping fees, in percent

Camper group Level of satisfaction Temporarily Permanently

Active inactive inactive

Generally satisfied 70 70 54 Generally dissatisfied 9 8 5 Does not apply to camping style 17 16 25 Don't know 4 6 16

Table 25.-Opinion of respondents concerning public campground fees, in percent

Sample group Fees cover all costs Fees kept low No opinion -

Active campers Temporary inactive campers Pernlanent inactive campers High-potential campers Medium-potential campers Low-potential campers Zero-potential campers

Total sample

Table 26.-Primary purpose for camping for active and inactive campers, in percent

Purpose All Temporarily Permanently

campers Active inactive inactive

Vacation inexpensively 16 13 Enjoy out-of-doors 53 54 Both of above 25 32 No opinion 5 1 - -

Total 100 100

Table 27.-Recent trends in camping participation for all campers having begun camping prior to 1973, in percenf

Camper group Trend

About the Increased Decreased same each year lately late1 y

All campers Campers without children Campers with children Currently active campers Head-of-household under 30 Head-of-household 30-39 Head-of -household 40-49 Head-of -household 50-59 Head-of-household 60 or older

Reasons for Camping important (table 26) . However, a signif i- . -

cantly (0.05 level) higher proportion of ill- More than half of the respondents who had active campers went camping primarily as &

camped indicated that their primary Purpose means of vacationing inexpensively than di J in camping was to enjoy the out-of-doors or active campers. Hence, while economy in va- outdoor activities. Only 16 percent went pri- cation expenditures was not the primary rea- marily as a means of vacationing inexpen- son for camping among the majority of sively, and 26 percent said both reasons were respondents, i t does appear to have been rela-

tively more important among those who are currently inactive.

The observation that camping seems to be related to life-cycle stages is reinforced by the stronger positive image of carnping held by people having children in the household and by their higher incidence of having c a m H (44 vs. 38 percent) or having con- sidered carnping (21 VS, 7 pereel~t). Appar- ently the presence of children in the house- hold increases the likelihood of camping in- volvement. But once a household is in the camping market, life-cycle changes have no consistent effect on length of frequency of participation f lapage and Ragain 1974). Recent camping patterns among all campers indicate little or no relationship to the pres- ence of children in the household (table 27).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As eager campers swelled demand during

the 1960s, builders of campgrounds and sup- pliers of camping equipment responded by investing heavily in the industry. Recent de- clines in the growth rate of equipment sales and new ampground developments, along with a sharp increase in numbers of inactive campers, seem to herald an era of new marketing challenges for the industry.

The purpose of this study was to investi- gate the reasons for the apparent decline in several of the camping industry's growth in- dicators. The approach used was to apply the concept sf a camping-involvement cycle, with emphasis on explaining the processes of entry and exit of campers into and out of the cycle. A basic hypothesis of the study was that the popular image of carnping had deteriorated for many amper s and that disappointing camping experiences markedly increased exit rates.

The concept of a campiw-involvement cycle assumes that there are stages through which people move as they become involved in and then eventually leave camping. Persons or households become potential campers, then active campers, and finally become ex-camp- ers or camping market drop-outs.

According to our 1973 survey results, 9 percent of all U.S. households were in the

potential stage, 21 percent were in the active stage, and 20 percent were either temporafily or permanently out of the market. The r e maining 50 percent were not involved in any stage of the cycle. Not only is the reservoir of potential campers relatively snnall, it has de- creased from 7.4 to 6.1 million households be- tween 19'71 and 1973. n i s cham=, plus the increase in drop-outs, emphasizes the need for an understanding of peoplesp expectations, experiences, and images of camping.

Potential campers were classified as hav- ing medium or high ptential based on their explicit plans to start camping. Inactive campers were classed as temporarilg inactive or permanently inactive, depending upon their length of inactivity and their intentions of returning to an active status. These four groups, plus the active campers, account for one-half of all households. The other half was divided into households with low and zero potential for camping.

The first objective of this study was to compare the images of camping among the several camping-involvement groups. Respon- dents'images of camping were analyzed with reference to three components : the camping environment, the camping attraction, and camping conditions.

A high proportion (52 percent) of all re- spondents had a favorable impression of the camping environment. That is, most people viewed camping as friendly, pleasant, inter- esting, and refreshing. Only 18 percent, had a negative image, and 29 percent had no spe- cific impression of the camping environment.

Only 35 percent of all respondents held a positive image of camping conditions (clean, safe, uncrowded, inexpensive), while 44 per- cent had neither a favorable or unfavorable view of camping conditions. Among the nega- tive impressions, crowding was viewed similarly a t all stages of the camping-involve- ment cycle : one out of three responden& saw campgrounds as being crowded places.

The attractions of camping (ease, enjoy- ment, convenience, comfort), were recognized by 35 percent of all respondents. Of the three components of the camping image, attraction was most frequently seen to be negative (28 percent) by all respondents. Negative images

of camping were based largely on the inlpres- sion that camping is not convenient, is too much work, and is not very comfortable. This common view suggests that a trade-off be- tween low-cost accomodations and inconveni- ence is not a consideration for many people who might otherwise be potential campers. Again, however, many respondents (37 per- cent) were indifferent or had an undeveloped image of the attractions of camping.

Active campers and high-potential campers had a much higher image of camping than did any other group. Next highest were the temporarily inactive and medi~~m-potential campers, followed by the permanently in- active campers. The poorest images were held by the low- and zero-potential groups. Differ- ences in the images of camping between the potential and inactive campers suggest that expectations of a rewarding camping experi- ence were probably higher than the rewards actually experienced by those who later be- came inactive. In short, camping images tend to follow, and to reinforce, our description of the camping-involvement cycle.

The second objective of this study was to determine the processes by which people move from being almost a camper to becoming gin active camper. The survey indicates that po- tential campers are mainly young families with children who are active in outdoor- recreation activities. More than 19 percent of the potential campers, compared to 11 percent of the total sample, were nonwhites. More than two-thirds of the potential carnl)ciqs had friends who own camping equipment.

Considerable geographic variation exists between regions of the country in vunll)t~rs of potential campers. The Northeast ant1 South have the highest proportions sf potential additions to the market (34 and 37 percent, respectively, of all households) . This cor- responds only partially with camping images by regions. Southerners had a correspond- ingly high image, but the Northe* 'ts .*t ern re- spondents did not. Apparently factors other than image influence camping pot~ntial .

More than half of the potential cgiimpcrs had considered taking a camping t r ip in the past 1 to 3 years. However, very few had sought information about the av:xil;tbility of

campgrounds and practically none had tried making reservations a t a campground. Other priorities for time, followed by a lack of in- formation about camping equipment, were reasons frequently given for not having started camping by those who had considered it. Fewer than one out of five people consider- ing a canlping trip had investigated the cost of eampi tlg equipment ; and most potential campers excepted to purchase a tent for their first trip,

Intentions of purchasing a variety of out- (toor-recreation equipment coincided with crimping-market involvement stages, Similar fiiltlings from a study of actual purchasing patterns are reported by LaPage and Ragain ( l97.4). Clearly, plans to purchase camping- related equipmerit rise and fall with the camp- ing-involvement cycle. It is not obvious, though, why purchasing intentions of other types of outdoor-recreation equipment should rise and fall along with camping involvement, unless the potential to become a camper coincides with the potential to enter other leisure- activity markets.

The third and final objective of this study was to evaluate the process by which campers exit from the camping market and to assess the importance of camper dissatisfaction with camping. A high rate of camper drop-out may represent normal attrition or may be due to growing dissatisfaction with camping experi- ences.

Eighty-six percent of all campers and 93 percent of the active campers expressed over- all satisfaction with their last camping trips. Fewer of the inactive campers, especially the permanently inactive campers, were generally satisfied. The major sources of dissatisfac- t!on were concerns over availability of camp- sites, campground cleanliness, and recrea- tional opportunities. Less than 10 percent of any camping-involvement group expressed dissatisfzrction with the size of fees, indicat- ing that fees were not a major factor in camp- ers' decisions to drop out of the camping market.

Campers in the permanently inactive group were older, on the average, (44 years), which suggests that some of the dropping-out may be associated with stages of the family life

cycle ( f amily-rearing period, etc. ) , However, a comparison of the average ages of rmpon- dents in other stages of camping involvement suggests that much of the dropping-out must be due to other reasom,

Participation in all outdoor-recreation activities generally increased from potential to active and then dwreasd among inactive campers. The decline was most noticeable in the permanently inactive group. Yet, more than half of the campers indicahd that their primary purpose in camping waa3 to enjoy the out-of-doors, while 16 percent said their pur- pose was to vacation inexpensively, and 26 percent said both, Certainly camping, if not several of its related outdoor-recreation activities, should have a lifetime appeal for people with a predispsition to enjoy the out- of -doors. In conclusion, i t appears that camping

images do reflect the three stages of the camping-involvement cycle. But the rela- tionships between images and specific causes of camping inactivity such as dissatisfaction, cost, and family life-cycle, are not clearly evident. Inactivity is due to a number of causes, but perhaps most important is a lack of interest or long-term commitment. Special kinds of facilities could be designed to recap- ture this large and growing group; however, it seems clear that for many of them camping wzls simply a low-cost opportunity to try something new.

More specialized campgrounds catering to

different groups, or more multiple-purmse campgrounds deaigned with separate sechlons catering to different groups, m y have prom- ise for the c a m p ~ o u n d industw in the fa- tare. And infomation should be directed to potential campers so they may become knowledgable a b u t what the cmpground industry has to offer. Pokntiaf, campers may then approach the rnarket with more realistic expectations and aspirations, have more enjoyable camping experiences, and thereby lengthen the active stage of their camping-invalvement cycle.

LITERATURE CITED Bevins, M. I., T. I. Brown, G. L Cole, and others.

1974. ANALYSIS OF THE CAMPGRBUND MARKET I N THE NORTHEAST. REPORT 11. PRIVATELY OWNED AREAS. Vt. Agrie. Exp. Stn. Bull. 679. p.

Bond, R. S., M. I. Bevins, T, L. Brown, and P. R. Fiske.

1973. ANALYSIS OF THE CAMPGROUND MARKET I N THE NORTHEAST - PUBLIC POLICY. Mass. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 601. 44 p.

LaPage, W. F. 1 9 7 3 . GROWTH POTENTIAL OF THE FAMILY CAMPING MARKET. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. N E - 2 5 2 , 25 p,

LaPage, W. F., and A. C. Haaland. 1974. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CAMPING MAR- KET SURVEY. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- 11. 39 p.

LaPage, W. F., and D. P. Ragain. 1974. FAMILY CAMPING TRENDS A N EIGHT YEAR PANEL S%DY. J. hisure Res. 6 (2) :101-112.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR AMERICA. U.8. GOV. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. 246 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1973. HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES, BY TYPE. SERBS P-20, NO. 251. (ADVANCE DATA FROM MARCH 1973 CURfl;ENT POPULATION SURVEY). 4 P.

APPENDIX 1

Table 28.-Percentage of total padicipafion in selected outdoor recreation acfivities by camping-involveme nt-cycle groups, 1973

Campers Potential campers Recreation activity Temporarily Permanently Total

Active inactive inactive High Medium Low Zero

Pienicking 30 Swimming 3 1 Fishing 37 Motor-boating 41 Hunting 46 Hiking 52 Trail-bike/snowmobiling 53 Back-packing 74 Canoeing 42 Snow skiing 5 1 No participation 3

Per cent of total sample: 21 9 11 1 8 17 33 100

* Less than 1 per cent.

APPENDIX II

Table 29.-Percentage of expected purchases of outdoor-recreation equipment, by sample respondent groups, 1973

Campers Potential campers Expected equipment purchase Temporarily Permanently Total

Active inactive inactive High Medium Low Zero

Sleeping bags 49 16 9 6 12 5 3 100 Cooler/refrigerator 41 14 9 4 10 18 4 100 Camp stove 47 20 7 5 15 5 1 100 Lantern 51 15 6 5 10 6 7 100 Shelter heater 53 9 11 6 20 (*) (*) 99 Lightweight tent 42 35 11 8 4 - - 100 Fishing equipment 3 6 16 9 3 11 13 12 100 Hunting equipment 38 18 10 4 11 11 8 100 Hiking equipment 58 8 10 6 11 7 - 100 Back-pack 64 27 8 5 6 (") (*) 100 Motor-boat 47 10 13 2 15 13 ( * I 100 Canoe 88 12 ("1 - - (*) (") 100 Skiing equipment 59 8 7 3 7 5 11 100 Snowmobile 40 16 10 2 - (*) 31 99 Trail bike 41 10 13 1 11 14 10 100 No purchase anticipated 12 6 12 0 6 19 45 100

Per cent of total sample 21 9 11 1 8 17 33 100

*Less than 1 per cent.

21

APPENDIX Ill -

SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Sampling, interviewing, data-coding, and machine analysis for this survey were performed by the Opin- ion Research Corporation of Princeton, N.J., under contract with the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, USDA.

The ORC: master sample consists of 360 counties in the contiguous United States. This master sample of 360 counties comprises, in fact, six subsamples of 60 counties each.

To construct the sample, the counties within each state were arranged in order of descending popula- tion size; and all the states were grouped in geo- graphical order from Maine to California. Sixty counties were then chosen by statistical procedures that insure representative geographical distribution. This process was repeated to obtain the six sub- samples that make up the master sample of 360 counties.

The next step in the sampling design was to select a n area from each of the 360 counties in the master sample. Again, a probability sampling method was used to select, within each county, a minor civil di- vision (MCD) as defined by the Bureau of the Census. A minor civil division may be a town, town- ship, city, or part of a city. The probability that any particular minor civil division was selected in a county was proportional to the population of that minor civil division. Thus the larger a minor civil division, the greater the likelihood that it be selected. The minor civil division, then, is the primary sampling unit.

Once the MCD has been selected, the next step is to determine those households where interviewing is to take place. Under the ORC National Probability Sample procedure, any current listing of household locations, even if incomplete, constitutes the first stage of the sampling plan. From this list of house- holds, one or more addresses are chosen a t random. Each of these addresses defines the place that the interviewer begins following the interviewing site- selection process. The interviews in a cluster or neighborhood do not begin a t the household selected from the list, but a t the adjacent household, which may or may not be on the original list, Thus the list does not define the universe of households in an MCD, but rather the list of households adjacent to

possible starting points. Depending on the number of households contacted from each starting point, the number of starting points chosen, and the criteria for being included on the original list, every household in the MCD has a known, or knowable, probability of being included in the ORC sample.

The specific persons to be intemiewed are selected as follows: 1. A certain number of starting points are selected

from the telephone books covering the minor civil divisions or communities selected. The starting points are chosen in a manner that, within the minor civil division, each household listed in the phone book has an equal chance of being selected. Each starting point selected determines a group of households, called a cluster, in which interviews are conducted. This cluster of households includes households both with and without listed tele- phones. The first household in which an interview is conducted is the household immediately to the left of the household selected from the telephone book a s the starting point. Thus, the first house- hold can be one either with or without a telephone.

3. The interviewer conducts an interview in the first household and then works through the group of households following a prescribed rule. The inter- viewer continues working through the cluster until interviews have been completed in a pre- assigned number of households.

4. A respondent-selection procedure determines for the interviewer which person t o interview in any given household. Every eligible respondent in the household has the same chance to be interviewed a s any other eligible respondent. The interviewer is not allowed to make any substitutions.

Once all interviews have been completed, weighting procedures are employed to ensure that the sample properly represents the population from which i t was drawn.

This sampling procedure is rigorous in concept and practice and allows for the exact determination of the statistical precision of any finding.

APPENDIX IV

STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION

Reliabiliv of Survey Percenfages Results of any sample are subject to sampling var-

iation. The mamitude of the variation is measurable and is affected by the number of interviews and the IeveI of the percentages expressing the results.

The table below shows the possible sample varia- tion that applies to percentage results reported from the Opinion Research Corporation sample. The chances are 95 in 100 that a Caravan survey result does not vary, plus or minus, by more than the indi- cated number of percentage points from the result that would be obtained if interviews had been con- ducted with all persons in the universe represented by the sample.

Approximate sampling Size of sample on tolerances applicable Co which caravan s?Lrvey Percentages at or near result is based these levels (No. of interviews) 10010 or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

2,000 2% 3% 3% 1,000 2% 4% 4% 500 37% 5% 5% 250 5% 7% 8% 100 7% 11% 12%

Sampling Tolerances When Comparing Two Samples

Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results from different parts of any one Opinion Re- search Corporation sample and in the comparison of results between two different ORC samples. A differ- ence, in other words, must be of a t least a certain size to be c on side red statistically significant, The table below is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to such comparisons.

Diferences required for sirtnificance at or near

Size of samples ' the& percentage levels* compared 20% or 9070 30% or7070 50% 2,000 and 2,000 2,000 and 1,000 1,000 and 1,000 1,000 and 500 500 and 500 500 and 200 200 and 200 200 and 100 100 m d 100

* Based on 95 chances in 100.

APPENDIX V

INTERVIEWING MATERIALS

The following se t of questions concerns your interest in fami ly camping and your experiences with any of the types of equibment shown on this card -- SHOW EXHIBIT C-1 C1. Within the past two years, have you visited a

camping show or recreational vehicle show where any of these types of equipment were displayed?

1 YES 2 NO

3 DON'T KNOW

C2. Do any of your friends own or use any of the types 1 YES on this card? 2 NO

3 DON'T KNOW

C3. Considering the total cost of camping, including taxes on equipment, campsite fees, extra to1 1s and 1 MORE ECONOivtICAL insurance, and equipment costs, do you feel t h a t 2 LESS ECONOfjlICAL camping i s more economical or less economical or 3 ABOUT THE SAME about the same as other ways of traveling and taking 4 DON'T KNOW a vacation?

C4. As briefly as possible, could you t e l l me what thoughts come to mind as you think about 1 iving a t a campground for a few days in any of these types of equipment.

SHOW EXHIBIT C-5 I

contains descriptive words t h a t can be used t o describe camping. As I read the l e t t e r before the descriptive word, please choose a point on the scale which i s closest t o how i t would describe your impression of camping.

For instance, i f you will look above the l i s t of words, there i s an example. I f you were describing the weather and you f e l t i t was "a cold day," you would place i t on the scale toward #5.

The colder i t was, the closer to #5 you would place i t . On the other hand, i f you f e l t i t was a hot day, you would place i t on the scale toward # l . The hotter you t h o u g h t i t was, the closer you would place i t to # I . If you f e l t i t was neither very cold nor very hot, you would place i t toward the middle of the 1 ine.

First , l e t ' s s t a r t with Description A. What point on the scale i s closest to how Description A best describes camping to you. (INTERVIEWER: CIRCLE # FOR DESCRI PTIOi4 A AND REPEAT FOR EACH DESCRIPTION. ) -

No Answer

TURN BACK TO E X H I B I T C-1 S K I P TO Q. C17

taken with scouting groups or mi 1 i tary

SKIP TO Q. C14

( I F "YES11 ON Q. C7, SHOH E X H I B I T C-8, AND ASK): C8. Did you decide y& t o camp a t tha t time for any of these reasons?

Jus t read me the nuze r s tha t apply please. (Check as many as apply.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 OTHER (Specify) 7 NOFSE OF THESE

C9. When you 1 a s t considered going on a camping t r i p , had you selected a region

v i s i t ? o r part of the country

(IF I ~ Y E S ~ ON Q. c9, ASK): 1 ClOa. Did you write fo r information 1 YES

o r t r y in other ways t o deter- 2 NO mine the avai labi 1 i ty of 3 DON'T KNOW campgrounds?

ClOb. Did you attempt Lo reserve a 1 YES campsi t e i n advaye? 2 NO

P 3 DON'T K N O ~

Cll. Did you check into the cost of buying 1 YES camping equipment? 2 NO

3 DON'T KNOW

612, Did you look in to the cost of renting 1 YES your equipment? 2 NO

3 DON 'T KNOW

C13. Did you look into the possibi l i t ies 1 YES of borrowing the equipment? 2 NO

3 WIJ'T KNOW

SHOW EXHIBIT C-14 614. . Which of the statements on t h i s card best describes your household's present

a t t i tude toward camping. Jus t wad me the number, please.

1 t4EXT YEAR 3 UNLIKELY TO GO 2 HOPE TO GO I N FUTURE 4 NOT INTERESTED, SKIP TO

Q. C29

SHOW EXHIBIT C-1 AGAIN e15. Which of these types of equipment will you probably use on your f i r s t t r i p? Just "

read me the number please. (INTERVIEWER: CIRCLE APPROPRIATE LETTERS BELOW AND ASK Q. C16 FOR EACH TYPE USED IN-9. C15.)

1. TENT

2. CAMPING TRAILER (Folding)

3. TRAVEL TRAILER (any kind, any s ize )

4. TRUCK CAMPER

5. PICK-UP COVER

7. VAN OR BUS CONVERSION

X. OTHER (Please specify):

For t h i s t r i p will you 1. Rent 2. Borrow 3. Purchase 4. Or already own th i s equipment? I

-- 5, DON'T KNOW

2. Borrow 3. Purchase

C16f. For t h i s t r i p will you

2. Borrow 3. Purchase

2. Borrow 3. Purchase

- C16h. For t h i s t r i p wi 11 you

1. Rent 2. Borrow 3. Purchase 4. Or a1 ready own th i s equipment? 5. DON'T KN0f.I

Y. DON' T U4Ok4

camping? (PROBE: What spec i f i ca l ly has i n s ince t h a t l a s t t r i p ? )

X HAVE NOT STOPPED -- SKIP TO Q . C20

C19. Have you sold your t e n t , t r a i 1e r 1 SOLD IT (o r i s s e l l i n g i t ) o r o ther camping s h e l t e r , have you 2 GIVEN AWAY given i t away, o r do you s t i l l 3 STILL HAVE IT have i t ? 4 DID NOT OWN (rented o r

borrowed) 5 DON'T KNOW

C20. In what year did you f i r s t go camping 1 1973 ---b SKIP TO Q. C22 as an adult?

6 DOH'T RECALL

1 ABOUT THE SAME EACH YEAR 2 INCREASED LATELY

3 DECREASED LATELY 4 DON'T KNOW

C22. During the past year , d id the gasoline 1 TRIP CANCELLATIONS shortage -- or the th rea t of a gas 2 SHORTENED TRIPS shortage -- cause you t o cancel any of 3 POSTPONE PURCHASES your camping t r i p s , t o cut them shor t e r 4 NONE OF THE ABOVE than you p1 anned, o r t o postpone the purchase of a major i tern of camping

I equipment? (Check as many as apply)

TURN BACK TO EXHIBIT C-1 C23. On your 1 a s t campqng t r i p , which o f these types o f camping equipment d i d you use.

J u s t read me t he l e t t e r please,

1. TENT

2 . CAMPING TRAILER (Fold ing)

3. TRAVEL TRAILER (Any k ind, any s i ze )

4. TRUCK CAMPER

4, O r a l ready own t h i s equipment?

2. Borrow 3. Purchase

2. Borrow 3. Purchase 4. O r a l ready own t h i s equipment?

5. PICK-UP COVER

6. MOTOR HOME

C24e. For t h i s t r i p d i d you

2. Borrow 3. Purchase 4. O r a1 ready own t h i s equipment?

C24f. For t h i s t r i p d i d you 1. Rent 2. Borrow 3. Purchase 4. O r a l ready own t h i s equipment? 5. DON'T KNOW .

7. VAN OR BUS CONVERSION

C24g. For t h i s t r i p d i d you

2. Borrow 3. Purchase 4. Or al ready own t h i s equipment? 5. DON'T KNOW i 2. Borrow

X. OTHER (Please spec i fy ) : 3. Purchase 4. Or al ready own t h i s equipment?

Y. DON'T KNOW

625, On your l a s t camping t r i p were you generally s a t i s f i e d o r generally d i s s a t i s f i e d wi t h : ( INTERVIEIdER: READ EACH STATEIEET BELOW AND CI RCLE RESPONDEiJT ' S AIJSMER. )

GENERALLY GENERALLY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

A. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of t en t - s i tes and t r a i 1 e r s i t e s 1 2

B. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of recreational f a c i l i t i e s a t the campground 1 2

C, The cleanliness and condition of campgrounds 1

D. The avai Jab i l i t y of hook-ups 1 2 E. The level of camping fees 1 2

F- The t r i p as a whole 7 2

On tha t t r i p did you camp a t pr ivate campgrounds, pub1 i c campgrounds such as s t a t e parks, o r both public and pr ivate?

DON'T DOES NOT APPLY TO KI4OW MY STYLE OF CAMPIFIG

1 PRIVATE 2 PUBLIC

3 BOTH 4 DON'T KldOW

C27. Thinking back t o the time of your l a s t camping t r i p , 1 CAREFUL PLANNING can you recal l whether t h a t t r i p was t h e r e s u l t of 2 ItJlPULSE long planning over a period of several days o r weeks, 3 DON 'T KE4OW o r was i t more l i k e a "spur of the moment" idea with l e s s than 2 days of planning? --

C28, Would you describe your camping as 1 MAY OF VACATIONING INEXPETISIVELY primari 1y a way of vacationing inex- 2 A WAY OF ENJOYING OUT-OF-DOORS pensively, o r as basical l y your way of 3 BOTH enjoying the out-of-doors, hiking, swim- 4 NO OPII\IIO;4 ming, f i sh ing, and other physical a c t i v i t i e s ?

INTERVIEWER: ALL RESPONDEIiTS ARE ASKED THE FOLLOWING: SHOW EXHIBIT C-29 C29. During the next year , which of the following types of equipment do you expect t o

purchase? ( J u s t read me the numbers, please.) (Circ le each i tem answered.)

11 12 13 14 15 16 OTHER (Please speci fy) : 17 NOi4E OF THESE

SHOW EXHIBIT C-30 ' m n v camgsrounds are provided on public lands

such as ~ i a t e and ~ a t i o n a l parks.. Here a re two opposite ideas about fees f o r camping a t these public parks. Which of these statements do you most agree with?

1 FEES COVER ALL COSTS 2 FEES KEPT LOW 3 NO OPINION

SHOW EXHIBIT C-31 C31. During the past 12 months I BOATING (motor boats)

have you, personal l y , par t i c i - 2 CANOEING pated in any of the following 3 FISHING types of l e i su re time ac t i v- 4 HIKING t i e s ? ( Jus t read me the numbers, 5 SKIIiIG (on snow) please. ) 6 PICNICKING (away from home)

7 SWIi-Ii9IilG (away from home) 3 TRAIL BIKE RIDING OR SNOWMOBILING

9 NUNTIr4G (any type, any place) 10 BACK PACKING

EXHIBIT C-1

1 TENT (Any kind, any s i z e )

2 CAMPING TRAILER (Folding)

3 TRAVEL TRAILER (Any kind, any s ize )

4 TRUCK CAMPER

5 PICK-UP COVER

6 MOTOR HOME

7 VAN OR BUS CONVERSION

) Example: I A warm day 1 2 3 4 5 A cold day

EXHIBIT C-5

I think camping would be:

A , , , , , . . Interesting

B. .Unfriendly people

C, ............ Clean

D . , , . . , . , , Dangerous

E . . ...... Refreshing

......... F,. Crowded

........ G. Expensive

H.. ....... Difficult

I , , ........ Pleasant

J. ............. Work

K . , , , , , . , ,Convenient

L....,..,Complicated

M, , , . . Uncomfortable

Boring

Friendly people

Di rty

Safe

Ti ring

Uncrowded

Not expensive

Easy

Unpleasant

Fun

Not convenient

Easy

Comfortable

EXHIBIT C-8

Reasons f o r decid ing n o t t o camp

1 The expected costs o f camping.

2 We lacked in fo rmat ion about camping equi pment .

3 We lacked in fo rmat ion about places t o camp.

4 We were uncer ta in about whether we would enjoy associat ing w i t h campers.

5 The "gas shortage."

6 Other reasons (Please spec i fy )

E X H I B I T C-14

1. We expect t o go camping nex t year.

2, We hope t o go camping a t some tinle i n the future, b u t probably n o t next year.

3, We are u n l i k e l y t o go camping i n the foreseeable fu tu re ,

4, We are d e f i n i t e l y n o t i n te res ted i n camping.

N e x t y e a r I e x p e c t t o buy:

F I SHJ NG EQU IPMENT

SNOWMOBILE

CANOE

S K I ING EQUIPMENT

MOTOR BOAT

HUF1Tf NG EQUIPiilENT

TRAIL B I K E - OR OFF-ROAD ECREATXONAL VEHICLE

H I K I N G EQUIPMENT

BACK PACK

SLEEPING BAGS

CAMP STOVE

TRAILER OR TENT HEATER

LIGHT WEIGHT, MOUNTAINEERING TENT

COOLER CHEST, OR REFRIGERATOR

GAS OR PROPANE LANTERN

OTHER ( P l e a s e s p e c i f y )

EXHf BIT C-30

1 Camping fees should be set high enough t o cover a l l - o r most - of t he cos ts of operat ing a pub1 i c campground.

2 Camping fees on pub1 i c 1 ands should be kept low and most o f the cos ts of operat ing campgrounds should be pai d o u t of our taxes.

EXHIBIT C-31

1 Boating (motor baa ts )

2 Canoeing

3 Fishing

4 Hiking

5 Skiing (on snow)

6 Picnicking (away from home)

7 Swimming (away from hone and outdoors)

8 Trail Bike Riding or Snow~obi l i n g

9 Hunting (any type, any place)

10 Back Packing

APPENDIX VI

Table 30.-Image indexes for selected demographic and camping marke+ groups

Item n image-index 11 Item n image-index

TOTAL U.S. PUBLIC 2207 1.689 11 Region:

Sex : Men Women

Age (years) : 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 +

Education : Less than high school High school Some college

Occupation : Professional Managerial Clerical, sales Craftsman, foreman Other manual, service Farmer, farm laborer

Place of residence : Rural Urban (non-metro) 50,000-999,999 1,000,000 or more

11 Northeast

1067 North Central 1116 1.443

Income : Under $5,000 $5,000-$6,999 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000 or more

Race : White Nonwhite

Family size : No children Children under 18

Home ownership : Own home Rent home

Market class : Active campers Temporarily inactive Permanently inactive High and medium potential Low and zero potential

W.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976-807-147/648